S.F., wireless group to appeal trimmed cellular law

CELL PHONES

A wireless industry group said Wednesday it plans to appeal a federal judge's ruling that narrowed San Francisco's first-in-the-nation law requiring cell-phone dealers to warn customers about possible radiation dangers.

In a legal filing, CTIA-The Wireless Association said it would ask a federal appeals court to prevent the scaled-down ordinance from taking effect Nov. 30 while the trade group challenges the judge's decision. While the group wants the entire ordinance blocked, the city's lawyer said San Francisco would ask the appeals court to reinstate it in full.

The measure, which was to have gone into effect in mid-October, would require retailers to give each cell-phone buyer a fact sheet saying the World Health Organization had classified the phones' radio-frequency emissions as a "possible carcinogen."

The sheet also shows human silhouettes absorbing radiation and suggests protective measures, like wearing headsets, making shorter calls and limiting use by children. Retailers would also have to put similar messages on large wall posters and on stickers attached to display ads.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup barred enforcement of parts of the ordinance in an Oct. 28 ruling, saying they appeared to violate the sellers' freedom of speech by forcing them to endorse messages they opposed.

He said the warnings gave the misleading impression that cell phones are unregulated and dangerous. In fact, he said, they must meet safety standards set by the Federal Communications Commission, which has not found that the devices emit dangerous levels of radiation.

Alsup told the city to rewrite the fact sheet to mention FCC regulation and the fact that the World Health Organization's classification of cell phones as a "possible" cause of cancer was less serious than rating the devices as probable or definite carcinogens.

He also told city officials to drop the requirements for wall posters and stickers and to remove the silhouettes from the fact sheets, saying the drawings contain "too much opinion and too little fact." But he said San Francisco is entitled to require sellers to give customers "accurate and uncontroversial facts" about a "plausible public health threat" as long as it is clear the message comes from the city.

CTIA said in court papers that the new fact sheet, although preferable to the original version, still violates freedom of expression and would be challenged on appeal.

Deputy City Attorney Vince Chhabria said the city has rewritten its brochures and is prepared to enforce the scaled-back ordinance on Nov. 30 before asking the appeals court to reinstate the original measure.

Referring to the trade group's emergency request to the appeals court to block enforcement, Chhabria said, "We realize CTIA wants to prevent consumers from receiving basic safety information about cell phones, but it's hard to understand how the requirement to provide this information creates an emergency."